Re: Implementing my proposal for the organisation of QA
Le Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 09:28:03PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva écrivait: > > The even better thing is when we don't need to centralize the detection > > of MIA people because the community around the package takes care of it. > > That's my goal. :) > and that's why I think that the mia-reporting mail and stuff should be > better documented... maybe the developer's reference... I know that, and if you read my other mail where I speak of the Package Tracking System, you'll see that I ask for help to update the Debian Developers's Reference. I'm proposing two new chapters and the documentation about MIA may well fit in "Going further than package maintenance" or in the actual section "Debian's developer duties" (which I added a long time ago). Feel free to send me patches against the actual source of debian developers reference... i'll do the work of merging, proofreading and rewording what's necessary. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Re : Bugs tagged help
Couldn't that list be put up somewhere and been kept up to date automatically? Like f.ex. be linked from the bts page? *t PS: Please CC: me I'm not subscribed to QA. --- Tomas Pospisek sourcepole- Linux & Open Source Solutions http://sourcepole.com Elestastrasse 18, 7310 Bad Ragaz, Switzerland Tel:+41 (81) 330 77 13, Fax:+41 (81) 330 77 12
Re: Re : Bugs tagged help
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 06:12:45PM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote: > Couldn't that list be put up somewhere and been kept up to date > automatically? Like f.ex. be linked from the bts page? Yes, it probably should be (although I'd be inclined to link it off http://qa.debian.org/). I'll see if I can knock something up. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Implementing my proposal for the organisation of QA
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020109 13:26]: > * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20020108 23:00]: > > A first proposal for tasks: > Please add: > [...] Thanks for the clarifications, Martin. I hope we can understand and document all this so everyone is more informed on what it takes to keep QA running well. -- -- Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Implementing my proposal for the organisation of QA
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'd like to get this running, so I'd like you to tell me within one week: > - if you seriously object against it > - to tell your comments about the suggested tasks below I have no objection to having people that are designated as being responsible for certain tasks. But I think it's important that the doing of tasks not be restricted to those people. They are just the fall backs, in case nobody else happens to do it. Further, I have the idea that the tasks should *all* land on the TODO list, regularly posted. So, for example, every month there would be a new TODO item added, relating to cleaning up stale ITAs. The task would identify the correct procedure to follow. Then, anyone interested could easily notice "oh, the ITAs haven't been done this month yet", claim the TODO item, and take care of it. Next month, another item would automagically be posted. Similarly for all regularly recurring tasks. I think that all bugs which are "important" and reside in "important" packages [I do not have a firm opinion of what the exact threshhold should be for either of these] should automatically get added to the TODO list once the bug report is opened. Each such bug should get looked at by QA to see if it requires particular QA attention, and if not, the TODO item can be closed. If the bug itself remains open for (say) two weeks, then it should automagically land on the QA TODO list again. Thomas
Re: Implementing my proposal for the organisation of QA
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020110 16:23]: > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'd like to get this running, so I'd like you to tell me within one week: > > - if you seriously object against it > > - to tell your comments about the suggested tasks below > > I have no objection to having people that are designated as being > responsible for certain tasks. But I think it's important that the > doing of tasks not be restricted to those people. They are just the > fall backs, in case nobody else happens to do it. This has been verified a few times. It's a good point. > Further, I have the idea that the tasks should *all* land on the TODO > list, regularly posted. So, for example, every month there would be a > new TODO item added, relating to cleaning up stale ITAs. The task > would identify the correct procedure to follow. > [...] Use of the TODO system is rather orthogonal to setting up the structure of what to do and who will do it. It's a good idea for keeping in mind. Distilling your description down to clearly specified algorithms may be something that would be very useful. A separate discussion should take place on the use of this TODO system to influence the behavior of those carrying them out. -- -- Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
